In a land­mark first, Chi­nese sci­en­tist claims birth of ge­net­i­cal­ly mod­i­fied ba­bies — and all hell breaks loose

A Chi­nese re­searcher is claim­ing that he cre­at­ed the first-ever ge­net­i­cal­ly edit­ed ba­bies us­ing CRISPR/Cas9 tools that have now be­come a com­mon fea­ture in labs around the world. And the news trig­gered a tem­pest in sci­en­tif­ic cir­cles the world over as re­searchers who have been us­ing gene-edit­ing tech to re­fine plants and forge new ther­a­pies try to puz­zle out the stun­ning —if true — de­vel­op­ment fea­tured on YouTube.

Sev­er­al ex­perts — in­clud­ing co-in­ven­tor Feng Zhang — crit­i­cized the ex­per­i­ment, rais­ing po­ten­tial safe­ty is­sues that could arise as a re­sult of the ge­net­ic tin­ker­ing. And Rice Uni­ver­si­ty, where a pro­fes­sor was re­port­ed­ly in­volved, is in­ves­ti­gat­ing.

The sci­en­tist who claimed cred­it for the work, though, of­fered a sun­ny per­spec­tive on YouTube.

“Two beau­ti­ful Chi­nese girls named Lu­lu and Nana came cry­ing in­to the world as healthy as any oth­er ba­bies a few weeks ago,” said Shen­zhen-based re­searcher Jiankui He in the YouTube video and WeChat post. But this was no av­er­age birth. The re­searcher’s un­ver­i­fied claim is that the twins’ em­bryos have been ge­net­i­cal­ly en­gi­neered with CRISPR to de­com­mis­sion CCR5, a gene used by HIV as a back door in­to a cell.

Ahead of an in­ter­na­tion­al con­fer­ence on gene edit­ing ex­pect­ed to com­mence on Tues­day in Hong Kong, He said he had al­tered em­bryos for sev­en cou­ples dur­ing fer­til­i­ty treat­ments, with one preg­nan­cy re­sult­ing thus far. But the le­git­i­ma­cy of the project is be­ing in­ves­ti­gat­ed. The South­ern Uni­ver­si­ty of Sci­ence and Tech­nol­o­gy in Shen­zhen, with which He is af­fil­i­at­ed, is­sued a state­ment say­ing it was “deeply shocked” and un­aware of his re­search project which they con­sid­er a “se­ri­ous vi­o­la­tion of aca­d­e­m­ic ethics and stan­dards.” The uni­ver­si­ty added He has been on leave with­out pay since Feb­ru­ary.

He has claimed his aim was not to cure or pre­vent an in­her­it­ed dis­ease, but to con­fer a trait that is nat­u­ral­ly com­mon in parts of North­ern Eu­rope — an abil­i­ty to re­sist an HIV in­fec­tion from the AIDS virus. But the choice to ed­it this CCR5 gene, the block­ade of which may al­so be ef­fec­tive in thwart­ing cholera and small­pox, im­me­di­ate­ly trig­gered an on­line up­roar over the use of CRISPR to al­ter DNA in a way that could be passed down for gen­er­a­tions to come.

MIT Tech­nol­o­gy Re­view’s An­to­nio Re­gal­a­do point­ed out this could be par­tic­u­lar­ly con­tro­ver­sial be­cause there are eas­i­er and cheap­er ways to pre­vent HIV in­fec­tion, or in­deed sup­press it. Edit­ing em­bryos dur­ing IVF will al­so be ex­pen­sive and in­volve tech­nol­o­gy out of reach for poor­er pock­ets of the world where HIV is ubiq­ui­tous.

Some are al­so sug­gest­ing the sto­ry rais­es oth­er thorny ques­tions. Im­pe­r­i­al Col­lege in­ves­ti­ga­tor Tom El­lis not­ed:

Al­though there is sci­en­tif­ic con­sen­sus that gene edit­ing should not be em­ployed to make “de­sign­er ba­bies” en­dowed with en­hanced phys­i­cal fea­tures or in­tel­lec­tu­al traits, the ju­ry is out on to what de­gree sci­ence should in­ter­fere with na­ture to pre­vent, treat or cure dis­ease.

In ad­di­tion to Chi­na, lab­o­ra­to­ry re­search is un­der­way in Swe­den and the UK, in­ves­ti­gat­ing the po­ten­tial of gene-edit­ing in hu­man em­bryos. But in the Unit­ed States it’s a po­lit­i­cal­ly charged propo­si­tion that has won the nar­row en­dorse­ment of the Na­tion­al Acad­e­my of Sci­ences, which last year rec­om­mend­ed that germ-line mod­i­fi­ca­tion of hu­mans was jus­ti­fied in some cir­cum­stances, such as pre­vent­ing the birth of chil­dren with se­ri­ous dis­eases. This rec­om­men­da­tion will like­ly fall on deaf ears, as sec­tions of the pub­lic ve­he­ment­ly op­pose such in­ter­fer­ence on re­li­gious grounds. In fact such mod­i­fi­ca­tions are prac­ti­cal­ly out of the ques­tion — with laws in place pro­hibit­ing the FDA from even con­sid­er­ing pro­pos­als to cre­ate ge­net­i­cal­ly-edit­ed off­spring.

The promise of CRISPR/Cas9 edit­ing has long been her­ald­ed. How­ev­er, ex­per­i­men­ta­tion with the pro­ce­dure has yield­ed sig­nif­i­cant safe­ty con­cerns. Da­ta pre­sent­ed ear­li­er this year sug­gest that the tool, which is es­sen­tial­ly a pair of mol­e­c­u­lar scis­sors, may in­ad­ver­tent­ly in­crease can­cer risk in some cells, or in­tro­duce ac­ci­den­tal mu­ta­tions — is­sues that could ham­per the de­vel­op­ment of gene-edit­ing ther­a­pies cham­pi­oned by com­pa­nies such as CRISPR Ther­a­peu­tics $CR­SP, Ed­i­tas Med­i­cine $ED­IT and In­tel­lia Ther­a­peu­tics $NT­LA.

“The ge­net­ic edit­ing of a speck-size hu­man em­bryo car­ries sig­nif­i­cant risks, in­clud­ing the risks of in­tro­duc­ing un­want­ed mu­ta­tions or yield­ing a ba­by whose body is com­posed of some edit­ed and some unedit­ed cells. Da­ta on the Chi­nese tri­al site in­di­cate that one of the fe­tus­es is a ‘mo­sa­ic’ of cells that had been edit­ed in dif­fer­ent ways,” Re­gal­a­do un­der­scored in his ar­ti­cle.

He’s project in­volved cou­ples in which the men had HIV but the women did not, and the goal was to pre­vent their chil­dren from suf­fer­ing the same fate.

Ac­cord­ing to the AP re­port, He said that in one twin, both copies of the in­tend­ed gene had been al­tered, while in the oth­er twin, just one copy had been dis­abled — and that there was no ev­i­dence of harm to any oth­er genes. Hu­mans with one copy of the gene can still be in­fect­ed with HIV.

The edit­ing oc­curred dur­ing IVF — first, the sperm was sep­a­rat­ed from the se­men where HIV is known to linger. Then, a sin­gle sperm was placed in­to a soli­tary egg to cre­ate an em­bryo when the gene-edit­ing tool was em­ployed. Cou­ples re­cruit­ed to the study were giv­en free fer­til­i­ty treat­ment in re­turn for their par­tic­i­pa­tion and of­fered the choice to use ei­ther edit­ed or non-edit­ed em­bryos for preg­nan­cy at­tempts. Over­all, 16 of 22 em­bryos were edit­ed, and 11 em­bryos were used in 6 im­plant at­tempts be­fore the twin preg­nan­cy was re­al­ized, He told the AP.

He, who is al­so a founder of a DNA se­quenc­ing com­pa­ny Di­rect Ge­nomics, ob­tained in­formed con­sent from par­tic­i­pants call­ing the study an “AIDS vac­cine de­vel­op­ment project.” How­ev­er, in his ap­pli­ca­tion form seek­ing eth­i­cal ap­proval, he dubbed it a CCR5 gene edit­ing project.

Press re­ports tied his work to Rice Uni­ver­si­ty’s Michael Deem, who now will have to an­swer for what, ex­act­ly, they did. Rice Uni­ver­si­ty was quick to launch its own probe. They not­ed:

Re­cent press re­ports de­scribe a case of ge­nom­ic edit­ing of hu­man em­bryos in Chi­na. These re­ports in­clude a de­scrip­tion of in­volve­ment by Dr. Michael Deem, a pro­fes­sor of bio­engi­neer­ing at Rice Uni­ver­si­ty. This re­search rais­es trou­bling sci­en­tif­ic, le­gal and eth­i­cal ques­tions.  Rice of­fers the fol­low­ing state­ment:

  1. Rice had no knowl­edge of this work.

  2. To Rice’s knowl­edge, none of the clin­i­cal work was per­formed in the Unit­ed States.

  3. Re­gard­less of where it was con­duct­ed, this work as de­scribed in press re­ports, vi­o­lates sci­en­tif­ic con­duct guide­lines and is in­con­sis­tent with eth­i­cal norms of the sci­en­tif­ic com­mu­ni­ty and Rice Uni­ver­si­ty.

  4. We have be­gun a full in­ves­ti­ga­tion of Dr. Deem’s in­volve­ment in this re­search.

And two founders of CRISPR were al­so quick to note their own prob­lems with the Chi­na em­bryo project.

The Broad In­sti­tute’s Feng Zhang, a co-in­ven­tor of the tech­nol­o­gy, had this to say:

Al­though I ap­pre­ci­ate the glob­al threat posed by HIV, at this stage, the risks of edit­ing em­bryos to knock out CCR5 seem to out­weigh the po­ten­tial ben­e­fits, not to men­tion that knock­ing out of CCR5 will like­ly ren­der a per­son much more sus­cep­ti­ble for West Nile Virus. Just as im­por­tant, there are al­ready com­mon and high­ly-ef­fec­tive meth­ods to pre­vent trans­mis­sion of HIV from a par­ent to an un­born child.

Giv­en the cur­rent ear­ly state of genome edit­ing tech­nol­o­gy, I’m in fa­vor of a mora­to­ri­um on im­plan­ta­tion of edit­ed em­bryos, which seems to be the in­ten­tion of the CCR5 tri­al, un­til we have come up with a thought­ful set of safe­ty re­quire­ments first.

Not on­ly do I see this as risky, but I am al­so deeply con­cerned about the lack of trans­paren­cy sur­round­ing this tri­al.


Im­age: Jiankui He. THE HE LAB via YOUTUBE

Janet Woodcock (AP Images)

Janet Wood­cock to be act­ing FDA com­mis­sion­er while Biden team fi­nal­izes nom­i­nee — re­ports

Janet Woodcock is set to be the most powerful person at the FDA in less than a week.

The veteran regulator and longtime director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research has been tapped as acting commissioner of the FDA, according to reports by BioCentury’s Steve Usdin and Pink Sheet’s Sarah Karlin-Smith.

The appointment was requested by the incoming Biden team, Karlin-Smith added, as they sort out the nomination of a permanent successor to Stephen Hahn — whose one-year tenure has been defined by Covid-19.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Janet Woodcock (AP Images)

Janet Wood­cock is in the run­ning for FDA com­mis­sion­er — what does that mean for the agen­cy's fu­ture?

Just a day after reports emerged that Janet Woodcock will serve as interim chief of the FDA, word has gotten out that she is also in the running for the permanent job.

The decision, as the initial wave of reactions suggest, could have dramatic implications for where the agency is headed in the next four years — if not beyond.

Woodcock, the longtime CDER director, is being vetted alongside former FDA principal deputy commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, Bloomberg reported. Already tapped as acting head of the agency, she’s set to take over from Stephen Hahn right after Biden’s inauguration next week.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Steve Harr (L) and Hans Bishop

Paint­ing by the num­bers, Sana founders carve up a gi­ant uni­corn-sized IPO — for a biotech that has­n't quite made it to the clin­ic

Sana Biotechnology is one of those startups that was sketched in on the chalkboard day one in the shape of a unicorn.

A giant unicorn.

And from the numbers the cell therapy 2.0 play spelled out in their S-1 $SANA, it’s clear that the company founders — led by a pair of major VCs aligned with some high-profile industry figures — are hunting a big chunk of that value for themselves.

The raise they penciled in — $150 million — isn’t likely what they actually have in mind, and it doesn’t do justice to the size of their ambitions.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

CEO Brett Monia (Ionis)

Can Brett Mo­nia push Io­n­is be­yond Spin­raza?

For 30 years, Brett Monia struggled as one of Ionis’ top scientists to get their antisense technology to work. Now, as CEO, he’s trying to use it to turn Ionis into one of the industry’s biggest biotechs.

Monia, one of the handful of young scientists who in 1989 followed Stanley Crooke across the country from SmithKline (now GSK) in Philadelphia to found Ionis in Northern California, replaced Crooke as CEO last January. By then, they had proven antisense, an RNA-based method for manipulating gene expression, could work dramatically well in at least some instances, transforming spinal muscular atrophy with the Biogen-partnered blockbuster Spinraza.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

David Kessler in April 2009 (Eric Risberg/AP Images)

Covid-19 roundup: Hack­ers start re­leas­ing 'ma­nip­u­lat­ed' Covid-19 vac­cine docs; Ex-FDA com­mish David Kessler to re­place Mon­cef Slaoui as Op­er­a­tion Warp Speed chief — re­port

There’s a new twist on the EMA Covid-19 hacking story.

Friday the European agency put out the 5th in a series of statements about the hackers who broke into their system, noting that some of the information on vaccines that was gleaned in the attack is showing up online — altered to raise questions about the Covid-19 vaccines now in use.

This included internal/confidential email correspondence dating from November, relating to evaluation processes for COVID-19 vaccines. Some of the correspondence has been manipulated by the perpetrators prior to publication in a way which could undermine trust in vaccines.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Terry Rosen, Arcus CEO

Gilead part­ner Ar­cus earns an­a­lyst­s' plau­dits for ear­ly pan­cre­at­ic can­cer da­ta that 'ex­ceed­ed ex­pec­ta­tion­s'

Arcus’ small molecule CD73 inhibitor for pancreatic cancer got a standing ovation from analysts who said preliminary data “exceeded expectations”— making waves in a field that’s seen little progress in several years and proving the candidate could be worth the hundreds of millions Gilead provided upfront in a deal that included more than a billion dollars for opt-in rights and milestones.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 98,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

News brief­ing: Five Prime fi­nal­izes PhI­II plans for gas­tric can­cer; AI di­ag­nos­tics-fo­cused Paige ex­pands staff

Five Prime Therapeutics has finalized a plan to take their comeback gastric cancer drug into late-stage studies.

The South San Francisco-based biotech released full Phase II data for bemarituzumab on Friday, which Five Prime said in November met all of its pre-specified efficacy endpoints in a topline readout. Now, the company is announcing it plans to launch a Phase III trial for the program in 2021. Following November’s readout, the future of bemarituzumab had not yet been finalized.

Peter Thiel, Getty (Photographer: Kiyoshi Ota/Bloomberg)

Pe­ter Thiel's psy­che­delics-fo­cused ATAI ac­quires ma­jor­i­ty stake in Recog­ni­fy and its lead schiz­o­phre­nia can­di­date

Billionaire Peter Thiel has made significant and sometimes controversial pushes into life sciences over the past few years, and one of his startups out of Berlin has made a new acquisition less than two months after achieving unicorn status.

ATAI Life Sciences purchased a majority stake Tuesday in Recognify Life Sciences, a company focused on developing treatments for cognitive impairment associated with schizophrenia. The financial terms of the deal weren’t disclosed, but the acquisition follows up a $125 million Series C in November co-led by Thiel, leading to a post-money valuation of about $1 billion for ATAI.

Cog­nate dou­bles man­u­fac­tur­ing ca­pac­i­ties in Mem­phis, Eu­rope, as de­mand for cell and gene ther­a­pies sky­rock­ets

The marketplace for gene and cell manufacturing therapeutics continues to be scorching.

Cognate BioSciences, a leading CDMO specializing in gene and cell therapy technologies, announced plans Friday that will double its total manufacturing capacities at sites in both the US and Europe — in direct response to a “great demand of commercial capacity within the biologics industry.”

The company provided most details for its US expansion, which will take place at its current headquarters in Memphis, Tennessee near the Memphis International Airport — crucial, it said, as Memphis is one of the world’s busiest cargo airports. Cognate will add two separate facilities totaling 250,000-square-feet: a GMP distribution center to manage global supply chain needs, and a third site for commercial manufacturing.